"Benalla's fault is not just an individual failure, but a symbol of the Macronian system"

Home"TO THE ONE""Benalla's fault is not just an individual failure, but a symbol of the Macronian system"
12 Partages
«La faute de Benalla n'est pas qu'une défaillance individuelle, elle est le symbole du système macronien»
French President Emmanuel Macron (C) and French Agriculture Minister Stephane Travert (L) walk as Elysee senior security officer Alexandre Benalla (R) looks on during a visit to the 55th International Agriculture Fair at the Porte de Versailles exhibition center in Paris, on February 24, 2018. / AFP PHOTO / POOL / STEPHANE MAHE
«La faute de Benalla n'est pas qu'une défaillance individuelle, elle est le symbole du système macronien»

- Journalist François Bazin takes stock of the Benalla affair and
analyze the communication of Emmanuel Macron during these last
weeks. He sees the bankruptcy of a governance based on the promise
of an "exemplary Republic".

Former editor-in-chief of the Nouvel political service
Observer, François Bazin is the author of a biography of Jacques
Pilhan titled
The sorcerer of the Elysee, the secret history of Jacques Pilhan (Plon, 2009). His last book, Nothing happened as planned. The five years that made Macron was published on June 1st at Laffont. He keeps the blog Lirelasuite.fr.

FIGAROVOX.- Is the Benalla case now closed or, for
the least under control, as suggested by Emmanuel's spokesmen

François BAZIN.- If that were the case, still
should we explain how a power that claims to be Jupiterian has
almost drowning "in a glass of water". Those who claim otherwise
that a "summer affair", by definition, must be extinguished at the beginning of
confuse the end of the act and the end of the piece. This case is
drawers, just like the one who is the hero. Every day that passes
brings new twists. It's a real soap opera,
exciting in this respect. The first episodes were explosive. The
furthermore, they are wicks which are not permanently extinguished
restart the fire.

With better communication, could this fire have been circumscribed right away?

communication can not everything. It will never be the wand
of a conjurer. In this kind of business, good communication
must offer a story that is both credible and honorable for
those who are questioned. It assumes speed, openness
and sharpness, including in the sacrifice of some positions
too obviously indefensible. The objective is not the research of the
fuse but installing a firewall or a derivative so that the
reading of the event is modified. In the Benalla case,
everything was done in reverse and at the wrong time.

If Benalla was punished, it was because he was not innocent but then why was he spared so much, on the sly?


If we redo the film of the first days,
we first see that at the Elysee, we did not imagine that two and a half months
After the May 1 slippages, Benalla's responsibility could be
suddenly established in the press. Not seen not caught! Nothing had been
prepared for the opposite case. When the chief of staff of the
President is questioned by The world, he can only recognize
the fault, accompanied by a sanction at least. Which is obviously too much
short for us to stay there. If Benalla has been sanctioned, it is because he
was not innocent but then why was he spared at this point,
in catimini? There is a great contradiction from the start. While
the wick of suspicion has just been lit, then comes the
spokesman of the Élysée. His solemn declaration is properly
extravagant since it relies on an obvious untruth: the
unpublished character of the temporary layoff of Benalla. To turn off
the fire, we just watered it with gasoline. Hat! To complete
the whole, that day, lacks luck, the President is on the ground
and can not escape the questions of journalists. We are looking for it but
it is hidden under the eyes of the cameras, which is not glorious and shows
especially an embarrassment which, therefore, signals a form of complicity.

For you, from there, the mass is so called?

is in any case sufficient for investigators, commentators and
other prosecutors rush into the breach with the effects that one
knows. The charge, at this stage, is based on recognized and
verifiable while the defense does not have the beginning of an argument
developed. I draw two conclusions. The first is that once again
in this kind of case - Fillon could testify to this - wanting to win
improvising or skewing is to take the risk of being
carried away by the wave. The second, specific to the Macron system, is that its
hypercentralisation makes it terribly fragile, since the
President shows in turmoil, an astonishing lack of responsiveness.
What good is it to boast of being the master of clocks when you are, in the
facts, constantly behind the event?

Macron should you have explained much faster in public?

think especially that it did not take long before the French
understand alone the main springs of this case. In this
meaning, they hardly needed explanations. They were waiting rather
words and deeds that prove immediate recognition of the
fault. If this stems from a feeling of impunity at the top of
the State, for lack of control, if the Elyos system as it was
set up for a year secretes the excess of power, so is not it
deceive his world to proclaim himself "responsible for everything" while
knowing very well that, constitutionally, we are not in fact
nothing. Responsible but not guilty: this line of defense has already
served, without much efficiency, it seems to me.

An exemplary Republic is not an infallible Republic, it is said at the Élysée ...

I hear
good. The Highway Code has never prevented speeders. But a
Republic which, at the top, fails, masks the truth and delays at this point
to take the necessary sanctions, does it still have a character

A Republic which, at the summit,
fails, masks the truth and is so slow to take the sanctions
who impose themselves, does it still have an exemplary character?

Does an individual failure, even of a collaborator of the Head of State, allow the condemnation of an entire system?

Rather than contenting himself with a TF1 newscast on which he appeared to be a kind, polite and measured gentleman, Benalla chose to tell in detail, in two other press interviews, his action and his role. To do so, by the way, under the guidance of a man as controversial as Marc Francelet, was like going for a patent of virginity to Madame Claude. The keg, as we well know, still smells herring. Beyond that, what this flight of interviews has drawn is the portrait dreamed of, not of a mere infantryman, but of a young colonel of the macronie, a sort of Julien Sorel, a bodybuilder, from his home province of force of energy and hypocrisy, and who would have preferred to red and black the blue of the police by constantly reviewing Kevin Costner in Bodyguard rather than rereading the Memorial of Saint Helena. Macron loves Stendhal to the point of having put a volume of his work on the desk of his official photo. Benalla is more than a piece in the presidential system. He is a central figure in the five-year novel. His fault, in any respect, can not have the character of an individual failure. In my opinion, she says everything: the system, her imagination, her madness too.

The editorial advises you:

«La faute de Benalla n'est pas qu'une défaillance individuelle, elle est le symbole du système macronien»

Alexandre Devecchio

Journalist at Figaro and responsible for FigaroVox.

Source: © Le Figaro Premium - "Benalla's fault is not an individual failure, it is the symbol of the Macronian system"

12 Partages

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your data is processed .

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By: XYZScripts.com
fr_FRFrançais en_USEnglish